Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Ngqushwa Local Municipality v SAMWU obo Mangesi and Others (2025/071747) [2025] ZALCPE 14 (29 July 2025)
The Labour Court granted Ngqushwa Local Municipality urgent relief staying enforcement of an arbitration award and accepted reduced security pending review.
Tedstone Flats CC and Others v Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC209/2021B) [2025] ZALCC 28 (11 June 2025)
The Land Court reopened a moot land-relocation matter to decide reserved costs and ordered the City of Ekurhuleni to pay Part A costs, including two counsel.
Bless Joe Trading CC v Ethekwini Municipality (D7596/2020) [2025] ZAKZDHC 37 (11 June 2025)
The court found that after the termination of the lease agreement, the defendant failed to remove the displaced people from the plaintiff's tent and ablution facilities, thereby preventing the plaintiff from regaining possession. The continued occupation constituted holding over, and the defendant, as a sphere of government, was liable for the damages arising from the loss of use of the plaintiff's property. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff voluntarily refrained from taking possession was rejected, as the defendant itself admitted that it had no alternative accommodation and could…
Source excerpt
Nwobi and Another v Metsing and Others (2017/043444) [2025] ZAGPJHC 580 (10 June 2025)
Eviction granted under PIE, but some occupiers are protected until the City provides temporary emergency accommodation within two years.
Du Toit N.O and Others v Gill and Others (22788/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 312 (2 June 2025)
The court found that, although it was generally bound by the evidence before it in the original eviction application, the new information presented by the respondents regarding the severity of the health condition of Mrs Gill's mother and the risk of homelessness warranted further inquiry. The court acknowledged that another court could reasonably find that it had not sufficiently interrogated the personal circumstances of the occupiers or obtained a necessary report from the City of Cape Town regarding alternative accommodation. As a result, there were reasonable prospects that another court…
Source excerpt
Khoza and Others v Vosloo and Others (2025/003669) [2025] ZAGPJHC 468 (8 May 2025)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to interim restoration of possession pending rescission. The eviction order was not granted in default, as applicants had filed answering affidavits and were represented, but failed to appear at the hearing without explanation. The applicants' inaction and repeated failure to provide personal and financial circumstances, despite multiple opportunities and directives, undermined their case and prospects of rescission. The absence of a municipal report did not render the eviction order procedurally irregular or unjust,…
Source excerpt
Appollis and Another and Breede Valley Municipality and Others (09986/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 138 (24 March 2025)
The court dismissed a rescission counterapplication, found the municipality failed to protect alternative accommodation land, and ordered it to provide suitable vacant land within 30 days.
K2012150042 (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Unknown Unlawful Occupiers of ERF 7[...], E[...] Township and Another (21/40484) [2025] ZAGPJHC 301 (19 March 2025)
The High Court granted an eviction order against unlawful occupiers, with staged vacating dates, demolition authority, and temporary emergency accommodation obligations for the City.
Mofamadi and Another v Mokhuane and Others (032666-2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 252 (12 March 2025)
High Court eviction application under PIE dismissed because no municipal report on alternative accommodation was before court, though occupiers were declared unlawful.
A.P and Another v Cohen and Others (Appeal) (A 216/2024 ; 21188/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 66 (24 February 2025)
The appeal succeeded on the grounds that the court a quo failed to comply with its obligations under PIE by not adequately investigating the Appellants’ personal circumstances, the risk of homelessness, and the interests of the minor children. The court a quo did not obtain sufficient information from the parties or the City to determine whether the eviction order would be just and equitable. The absence of a City report and failure to facilitate completion of the housing questionnaire meant the court was not fully informed. The court also failed to inquire into the children’s circumstances a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
